Author Topic: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle  (Read 23138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SkinsNatFan21RIP

  • Posts: 1127
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #500: July 05, 2024, 08:32:02 AM »
He’s a star. Like I’ve said a lot, I hated the Soto trade but getting three cornerstone players is pretty remarkable. There’s a legit chance all 3 end up being All-Star caliber players.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 42327
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #501: July 05, 2024, 08:45:49 AM »
He’s a star. Like I’ve said a lot, I hated the Soto trade but getting three cornerstone players is pretty remarkable. There’s a legit chance all 3 end up being All-Star caliber players.
don't dismiss Susana. He's only a month older than Sykora and looks like he's taken a big step forward.

Online imref

  • Posts: 44532
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #502: July 05, 2024, 09:59:45 AM »
don't dismiss Susana. He's only a month older than Sykora and looks like he's taken a big step forward.
And Hassell was playing well until he got hurt again.

Online nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 3319
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #503: July 07, 2024, 10:44:27 AM »
So I ended up trying to dig deeper into this. It turns out OAA is still really opague when it comes to infielders. For outfielders, I can look on Baseball Savant and watch a video of every play they are involved in along with seeing the catch probability for that play. Nothing like this appears to be available for infielders.

...

So none of the numbers add up making cross-referencing very difficult. I still plan to try and monitor this on a game-by-game basis to try and identify any trends as to what is causing his OAA and DRS to diverge so greatly but definitely a bit disappointing that infielder OAA is still so lacking in public clarity in how it's calculated.

Ok! I think it's starting to make some more sense. So it seems Baseball Savant's in-depth defensive OAA player pages take an additional day to update. i.e., CJ Abrams' page (first link below) is up-to-date as of Friday's game, and does not yet include yesterday's game. This appears to be the case as 9 more attempts were added to his ledger this morning, which is exactly the number of plays he was involved in on Friday.

Additionally, his OAA went from -10 to -11. So this was a game of some consequence in determining his defensive value.

Breaking his 9 new attempts down into 4 buckets based on their chance of success as 75%-100%, 50%-75%, etc. those attempts break down into 6 in the 75%-100% bucket, 1 in the 50%-75% bucket, and 2 in the 0%-25% bucket.

Of the 9 defensive plays Abrams was involved in, 4 resulted in a hit. His success rate went down for the 50%-75% bucket (and this is where the additional -1 of OAA for the day came from) so we can deduce that the 1 play that went into this bucket was 1 of the 4 hits.

Abrams' success rate in the 0%-25% is also still 0%, so we can also deduce that 2 of the hits went into this bucket. This means the remaining hit from defensive plays Abrams was involved in must have been in the 75%-100% bucket. I've linked to the 4 hits below as well. Baseball Savant doesn't tell us what the success attempt was on the individual play itself, that information must be stored internally, so we have to just use the eye test to guess which plays go into which bucket.

CJ Abrams Statcast Outs Above Average Page
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/visuals/statcast-infield-defense?type=Fielder&playerId=682928&startYear=2024&endYear=2024&result=&direction=&normalize=undefined&roles=&esrGT=0&esrLT=1&evGT=0&evLT=125&distGT=0&distLT=200&batside=&viz=intercept_fielder_starting_position_

Top 1 single by Alec Burleson off Corbin
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/sporty-videos?playId=12f0d5d3-38f2-46ac-9ebc-c3d664ba444f
Hard to say whether this one or the top 5 inning single is the 50%-75% bucket hit, but if I had to make a guess it is this one as it looks like it was hit right at Abrams' even if it was smoked.

Top 4 single by Paul Goldschmidt off Corbin
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/sporty-videos?playId=11926c7f-059d-471d-ac2c-dd2b2d51ce9f
My guess is this is the play that went into the 75%-100% bucket. Coming in appears to be Abrams' biggest weakness.

Top 5 single by Willson Contreras off Corbin
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/sporty-videos?playId=76985893-9e6e-4cd4-b0fb-d497c25399b0

Top 10 single by Nolan Gorman off Floro
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/sporty-videos?playId=4fdc955c-5163-4239-b0d1-aef7f9070eb3
Have to imagine this is one of the 0%-25% bucket hits.

I'm sure I'm the only one who cares that much about this but I do find it interesting to go through as I'm primarily a radio listener/gameday follower and so don't actually see what Abrams looks like in the field all that much. Just based on this analysis of one day I can see why OAA does not like him. Makes me wonder why DRS and UZR do (another above average season by DRS of 2 btw).

Online imref

  • Posts: 44532
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #504: July 07, 2024, 05:50:36 PM »
Abrams is the Nats’ all-star.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 26701
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #505: July 08, 2024, 07:52:32 AM »
Maybe they can pinch run for CJ is he gets on?

Online nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 3319
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #506: Yesterday at 01:48:37 PM »
Abrams comes in at #32 on Fangraphs' annual list of most valuable trade assets. I was a bit surprised they ranked him so high due to his defensive struggles. Goes to show how much a good bat makes up for all of that:

Quote
I mean, how in the world is Abrams under team control for four more years? I double- and triple-checked that in making this list. It feels like he’s been a big leaguer for forever because that’s just how Padres prospects got promoted a few years ago; he made his major league debut at the start of the 2022 season, but bounced back to the minors and didn’t end up with a full year of service time. He’s still only 23, and appears to finally be hitting the lofty offensive expectations that made him a top prospect.

Abrams is an outlier in this tier in that I can definitely name something he doesn’t do well: play defense. DRS is a big positive outlier in thinking that he’s an average shortstop; everyone else, from scouts to Statcast, considers him somewhere between subpar and disastrous defensively. I watched a lot of him in the field while working on this series, and I concur. He turns a lot of easy plays into hard ones despite prodigious raw talent.

Offensively, he used to have a similar profile – spectacular tools, limited production – but he’s putting everything together en route to a career-best season at the plate. Abrams has plus power that he gets to with shocking ease, and he’s aggressive in the zone in the general vein of Corey Seager. His swing will lull you to sleep, and then bam, it’s a yanked homer to the right field stands. I don’t know if he’ll ever be an all-fields crusher, but he might hit 25 homers a year as a dead pull type anyway. His swing-first approach and solid contact skills keep his strikeout rate in check, and he’s so dang fast that he runs a reasonable BABIP despite a fly ball approach.

I’d probably try Abrams at a different position if I traded for him. That said, it might just be something he grows into; he’s still only 23, and he definitely makes errors of commission rather than omission. The same is true on the basepaths, where Abrams has gotten thrown out (and picked off) at a prodigious rate this year. It feels like there’s still another level in there somewhere, whether it’s on defense or the bases. I started Abrams a bit lower in these rankings, but I consistently heard good arguments to move him up, so here he is.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2024-trade-value-nos-31-40/

So Gore, Wood, and Abrams are the three Nats on the list. Can't imagine anyone else will make it. Pretty good showing all things considered. Soto trade was an A+.

Edit: Also glad I finally found someone who acknowledged in an article the weirdness that DRS and UZR like Abrams but OAA and the eye test do not.

Online imref

  • Posts: 44532
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #507: Yesterday at 01:50:34 PM »
Saw a post on TalkNats saying that the Nats envision Seaver as either an Abrams replacement if they don't extend Abrams, or the SS of the future which would shift Abrams to 2B.

Online HondoKillebrew

  • Posts: 859
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #508: Yesterday at 04:36:27 PM »
Saw a post on TalkNats saying that the Nats envision Seaver as either an Abrams replacement if they don't extend Abrams, or the SS of the future which would shift Abrams to 2B.
.

Makes sense. 

Offline SkinsNatFan21RIP

  • Posts: 1127
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #509: Yesterday at 10:53:52 PM »
Saw a post on TalkNats saying that the Nats envision Seaver as either an Abrams replacement if they don't extend Abrams, or the SS of the future which would shift Abrams to 2B.

Jesus Christ, if we don’t extend Abrams? We’re doing this already? What else are you going to spend the money on?

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 26701
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #510: Yesterday at 11:38:04 PM »
Jesus Christ, if we don’t extend Abrams? We’re doing this already? What else are you going to spend the money on?
SP 500?

Online imref

  • Posts: 44532
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: CJ Abrams: Our new man in the middle
« Reply #511: Yesterday at 11:56:48 PM »
Bitcoin. But seriously, there's always the chance Abrams goes the Soto route and decides he's heading to FA no matter what. Having King as a backup plan makes sense.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 42327
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I'm not sure he's a long term shortstop. Slate had suggested dealing Garcia, perhaps to the Yanks, moving CJ to 2nd, and bringing in Kim as a FA. King is probably a couple of years away (he says without King having played a game -  lol), and I  don't think Kim signs a short-term deal while we wait for King to take his place. On another team, CJ is a centerfielder, but here, there are so many CF candidates I'd be surprised if that is the move.

Online imref

  • Posts: 44532
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
I'm not sure he's a long term shortstop. Slate had suggested dealing Garcia, perhaps to the Yanks, moving CJ to 2nd, and bringing in Kim as a FA. King is probably a couple of years away (he says without King having played a game -  lol), and I  don't think Kim signs a short-term deal while we wait for King to take his place. On another team, CJ is a centerfielder, but here, there are so many CF candidates I'd be surprised if that is the move.

King is 21 with 3 years of college ball under his belt, so an optimistic ETA for him is hopefully some time in 2026. We have Garcia under control through the end of the 2027 season.

Online nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 3319
Maybe King can be our Chris Taylor.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 64915
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Jesus Christ, if we don’t extend Abrams? We’re doing this already? What else are you going to spend the money on?
A competent fielding shortstop?

Offline SkinsNatFan21RIP

  • Posts: 1127
A competent fielding shortstop?

Is there anyone on the team you like lol